Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[TransmutingSoul]

It does challange that, we believe the human soul came into existence at birth, but my position is that these words are not necessarily what Krishna said (I'm not talking about how it was translated). Hindu believers believe that a witness wrote down these words as they were uttered, but to me this is part of what may be inaccurate. I hope that last sentence is clear to you.

I see it differently, but I would have to bring quotes together to remind me of what I currently consider.

How about this;

The Rational Soul | What Bahá’ís Believe

"Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. But the association is not material; the soul does not enter or leave the body and does not occupy physical space. Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”

So what is given at birth is a connection to a rational Soul.

What it was before this connection?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I notice such discussions soon become not an exploration, but of an opportunity to spit out rejections.

Oh for the day when those discussions can actually be had.

Regards Tony

 

[ajay0]

The collective Abrahmic religious philosophy is also not totally foreign to the idea of reincarnation.

I had earlier created a thread of the Druze, an Abrahamic religion that holds reincarnation as one of its core beliefs.

The Druze, an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that holds belief in reincarnation...

 

[loverofhumanity]

That is your view and I am an atheist. I do not believe in existence of God and in any message or messengers from God, do not need a God to exist.

But the Gita teaches there is a God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You have stated similarly this theme in a past post, and I have answered this in this post.

Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

If I may ask, why are you so repugnant to the idea of reincarnation/rebirth as taught by Krishna and the Buddha, while glorifying them as prophets and Avatars !

Also why are the Bahais, while emphasizing the equality of all sexes, still bans feminine leadership in their highest councils !

Baháʼí Faith and gender equality - Wikipedia

I believe there is a provision to revise their views in the light of evidence and proofs.


Does this inability to do so suggest a warped, static, conditioned mind stuck in the past teachings of bahai masters who have actually advocated a dynamic state of mind ready to revise stances and views when necessary !

This is the interfaith part of the forum @ajay0 . There is no debating allowed.

Reminder: No Debating in Interfaith Discussion

If you wish to debate the topic of equality of men and women and how Hinduism compares to the Baha'i Faith, please start a thread in the debate section. Similarly with reincarnation.

Suggesting Baha'is have a "warped, conditioned mind stuck in the past teachings of Baha'i masters" seems unfair and harsh. Its also somewhat hypocritical knowing some of the history of India. I'm not interesting in a slanging match and if I were, it would need to be in the debates section.

 

[ajay0]

I am a well-wisher of the Bahai religion and have praised it for their universal attitude in the past.

However I do find it offensive putting across to Hindus that reincarnation as presented in the Gita may be incorrect and emphasizing the Bahai viewpoint of reincarnation as presented in their texts, repeatedly.

Hopefully, we can put aside such subtle activities and learn to look at the bigger picture for wisdom.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am a well-wisher of the Bahai religion and have praised it for their universal attitude in the past.

However I do find it offensive putting across to Hindus that reincarnation as presented in the Gita may be incorrect and emphasizing the Bahai viewpoint of reincarnation as presented in their texts, repeatedly.

Hopefully, we can put aside such subtle activities and learn to look at the bigger picture for wisdom.

Why are you offended that some Baha'is view parts of the Gita allegorically? I doubt if it bothers any of the Baha'is in the slightest that many Hindus view the the Gita as referring to literal reincarnation as you do? We're all entitled to our perspective. Should we not be tolerant and respectful of religious diversity.

Same deal with our international governing body composed of men. That's what we choose. Sure, it doesn't fit with a lot of peoples ideals about the equality of men and women. I get it. But I don't tell the Brahma Kumaris how to organise their communities.

In the past you have been a great example of some of the best ideals of Hinduism and I appreciate that. Lets live and let live.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But the Gita teaches there is a God.

Gita does not restrict itself to any one view. Theists find verses favoring them, Advaitists (like me) find verses favoring 'non-duality' (which were quoted from just one chapter by Sayak. There are similar verses favoring 'non-duality' in other chapters as well). This is one of the hot debates in Hinduism.

"Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception."

Unless a proof is given, all this talk means nothing. That is the problem about many others and Bahaollah too. My view, Advaita, discards all useless imagined scenarios as soon as they arise. My belief is a no-nonsense belief.

 

[Vinayaka]

Trying to impose some sort of perennialist "unity" on other traditions isn't respecting diversity at all.

Imagine if somebody came up with a new religion which included Baha'i teachings, but completely redefined them to fit that new religion. Do you see the problem here?

This is the essence of the challenge many folks have with the Baha'i faith. It's not at all limited to Hinduism either. The same is done to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

They totally believe they're respecting diversity, but they're not ... at all. It would all be fine and dandy, in my view, if they didn't go around proclaiming it. How can a person be insulted if they don't hear the insult? But that too is challenging, because unlike other faiths, criticism of others is right there in the scripture, and totally within the main doctrine ... progressive revelation. It's also right there to go proclaim it. There is no Hindu scripture that says anything whatsoever about any other faith, or to proselytise. So if we want to get critical, we have to go somewhere beyond what scriptures say.

For you, I pray you learn your lesson quickly, and realise that this 'discussion' or any like it will be a waste of your valuable time.

 

[sayak83]

It does challange that, we believe the human soul came into existence at birth, but my position is that these words are not necessarily what Krishna said (I'm not talking about how it was translated). Hindu believers believe that a witness wrote down these words as they were uttered, but to me this is part of what may be inaccurate. I hope that last sentence is clear to you.

In a sense we are all embodiments of a single self, but that self is not God in His entiredy in my view, but is an embodiment potentally of the Manifestion of God. God transcends his creation, but we all to some degree reflect Him, including the rest of creation through the Manifestation or what most people call Prophets. Wish you had provided your quotes in a way that could be copied and commented on on their own. I was unable to do that.

Ok. Let me try line by line so that others find it easy to quote.

Verily, never was I not, were you not, o r were these rulers not,
nor will any one of us not be henceforth.

This statement clearly says that the human soul or inner self is eternal and uncreated. Now its fine if you believe this is in-authentic, but it does show a deviation from what Bahai believe and what the Gita states. I do not feel its rational to say something is inauthentic just because it does not jibes with the beliefs of your faith. You need other evidence to say "Sentence X is inauthentic while Sentence Y is authentic" . Its much better, in my opinion, to just note that there is a divergence here..for whatever reason that may be.
However @loverofhumanity said earlier that the Bahai belief that the soul preexisted in a spiritual plane before human birth. But even then the main belief is that souls are created by God at some point, correct?
The problem also is that Krishna opens his arguments to Arjuna with this statement of eternality of the inner self and goes on to further elaborate on this. Its a primary thrust of this opening chapter as we can see in the next set of sentences

Finite are said [to be] these bodies of the eternal embodied, the Indestructible, the Incommensurable. Hence fight,
0 descendant-of-Bharata !

and

This is not born nor [does it] ever die, nor having-come to-
be shall it again cease-to-be. This unborn, eternal, everlasting,
primordial is not slain when the body is slain.

and

The man (purusha) who knows this Indestructible, Eternal,
Unborn, Immutable -how and whom can he cause-to-be
slain [or] slay, 0 son-of-Pritha ?

while finally

As a man, [after] discarding worn-out garments, seizes other,
new ones, so does the embodied , [after] discarding worn out
bodies, enter other, new ones.

This last quote is one of the most famous sayings of Krishna and one of the more clear scriptural support for the rebirth cycle. This is also not believed in this form by the Bahai.
The further thing is that, this eternal unborn soul inside man is identified as the same one pervading all of reality

Yet, know as indestructible that by which this Entire is
spread out (pervaded). No one is able to accomplish the destruction of this
immutable (avyaya) [Reality] .

And it continues on this vein emphasizing the point again and again

This [Self] is uncuttable ; [this] is unburnable, unwettable, and
undryable. This ever-lasting [Reality] is eternal, omnipresent,
stable, unmoving.
This [Self] is called unmanifest (avyakta), unthinkable,
unchangeable. Hence knowing this [Self] thus, you should not
grieve !

Thus from my POV its difficult to see how this point can be considered peripheral to the the central message of the Gita. In all these passages its coming out clearly that according to the Gita, the self or soul of man is an eternal indestructible everlasting unchangeable entity that is also the same everlasting self that is pervading the entirety of the Reality. I think the Bahai views will run contrary on this point, but is there anything in the Gita that contradicts this description above by which the Bahai can say...look this is an inauthentic interpolation?

Note: For those who are following I have covered upto 2.25.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Unless a proof is given, all this talk means nothing. That is the problem about many others and Bahaollah too. My view, Advaita, discards all useless imagined scenarios as soon as they arise. My belief is a no-nonsense belief.

I do not know what you are objecting to?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

However @loverofhumanity said earlier that the Bahai belief that the soul preexisted in a spiritual plane before human birth. But even then the main belief is that souls are created by God at some point, correct?

I not so sure about that, much more study is needed. The more I read, the more I can only say we do not really know and should not argue over it and God forbid make it a point of division.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The problem also is that Krishna opens his arguments to Arjuna with this statement of eternality of the inner self and goes on to further elaborate on this. Its a primary thrust of this opening chapter as we can see in the next set of sentences

This is a problem, only when we close our minds to other thoughts.

From what I currently understand is that Krishna as the Self of God is as Christ offered the First and the Last, the Beginning and the end. That has been explained as a beginning that has no beginning and an end that has no end. That is because we can not conceive that the all powerful God had no creation.

So that eternal Soul is the source that sustains material creation, the Holy Spirit. Abdulbaha has written a tablet called the Tablet of the Universe and it explains in detail as to how creation issues forth from God, it is an amazing Tablet, yet to be officially translated.

I see that the human spirit is an emanation of the Holy Spirit and as such has emented as long as the Holy Spirit has been.

But I am far from putting this all together in a rational way, the Gita will assist, but I have to also be cautious as we can not be enitly positive all that is in the Gita is what Krishna originally offered.

Please do not be offended from me saying that, as that is my journey and I am only offering what I think.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

This statement clearly says that the human soul or inner self is eternal and uncreated. Now its fine if you believe this is in-authentic, but it does show a deviation from what Bahai believe and what the Gita states. I do not feel its rational to say something is inauthentic just because it does not jibes with the beliefs of your faith. You need other evidence to say "Sentence X is inauthentic while Sentence Y is authentic" . Its much better, in my opinion, to just note that there is a divergence here..for whatever reason that may be.

I agree it does say that. The reason I say it may be inauthentic is because I believe in Baha'u'llah, and I also believe in Krishna, and sometimes the only way to recocile two irreconcilable statements in my case, as definitely what Baha'u'llah said was recorded immediately from my knowledge of this, and by following historical scholarship on this, which of course is not infallible in any sense, it appears to me that Krishna's words were not written down as they were spoken. I would be denying Baha'u'llah, and Krishna also to do otherwise, because the reason I believe in Krishna, frankly, is because my faith says so.

As a man, [after] discarding worn-out garments, seizes other,
new ones, so does the embodied , [after] discarding worn out
bodies, enter other, new ones.

As to this one, besides the historical scholarship on whether He said those exact words, this particular one could be interpreted to mean the person after this life is over enter a new spiritual body, as the Baha'i Faith teaches, and it doesn't stop there. There are many worlds in the next life, many spiritual bodies he will go to.

 

[Truthseeker]

The collective Abrahmic religious philosophy is also not totally foreign to the idea of reincarnation.

I had earlier created a thread of the Druze, an Abrahamic religion that holds reincarnation as one of its core beliefs.

The Druze, an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that holds belief in reincarnation...

I had heard of that. Unusual.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am just randomly quoting this to continue the (slow and steady) discussion with respect to the Gita.

One of the things Krishna says speaks about the uncreatedness of the human Self. Krishna says that neither him nor anybody else in this battlefield have never not existed and will never not exist. I am interested about whether this challenges the idea of a Creator who created all human souls? How do the Bahai think of creation. Are human beings (not the body but the inner self or soul) co-eternal with God/Divine Self or not? Note also how the Gita shifts from talking about many souls to the single Self embodied in all bodies. This is one of main arguments supporting a strong non-dualism between God's Self and the Human Self and the Self that is immanent in the universe (reality).
Comments and thoughts about how the Bahai view these?
Quoting the Gita and the associated arguments here (from Chapter 2)
@Tony Bristow-Stagg @Truthseeker9 @adrian009

View attachment 53450
View attachment 53451
View attachment 53452

Arjuna has fallen into a state of despair seeing his friends, relatives and teachers on the battlefield. How can he slay those who m he reveres greater than himself. Surely this would be an unforgivable sin and even should Arjuna win the battle, Arjuna foresees he would be cast into hell taking the lives of those who he regards as his superiors. Overcome by emotion and despair, He submits himself to Lord Krishna and to be guided by Him. The verses BG 2:11-21 are the beginning of Krishna's council.

"Your grief is for those who do not deserve to be sorrowed for, as they are attached to the physical body. Your argument is based on the same thoughts. Wise men do not lament over those who have lost their lives (bodies) and those still alive, because the body is perishable and the Self is imperishable. Therefore, this deemed lamentation of yours is meaningless."

Essentially Krishna is teaching that our eternal souls are what matters, not our mortal bodies. A wise man neither grieves for the dead or living. Seers who have studied life, have concluded the same. Krishna exhorts Arjuna to arise and fight in the battle.

These verses are consistent with Baha'i theology. We have a soul that is eternal and it is the soul that is all important, not our fleeting mortal lives. We can kill the body, but not the soul.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Note also how the Gita shifts from talking about many souls to the single Self embodied in all bodies. This is one of main arguments supporting a strong non-dualism between God's Self and the Human Self and the Self that is immanent in the universe (reality).
Comments and thoughts about how the Bahai view these?

There are Baha'i writings that both support and reject non-dualism. It is quite a theological expedition. I would lean more towards dualism, but there are Baha'i writings that support non-dualism as well.

O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 6-7

It is important to recognise the Baha'i writings see the nature of God as being unknowable, yet our purpose is to know and worship God. The soul is seen as being a mystery that no mind, however advanced can fathom.

Are human beings (not the body but the inner self or soul) co-eternal with God/Divine Self or not? Note also how the Gita shifts from talking about many souls to the single Self embodied in all bodies. This is one of main arguments supporting a strong non-dualism between God's Self and the Human Self and the Self that is immanent in the universe (reality).

There are Baha'i writings that refer to the oneness of humanity and we should see ourselves as one soul.

O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 20

However there is also distinction between man and His creator.

To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.”…

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 46-49

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not know what you are objecting to?

I am not objecting to anything. I am just pointing out that people believe in things without any evidence where as Advaita (my belief) does not accept anything without proof and to that extent that the proof is available.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic humane commonsense.

Life was harmed.

We can quote God did it yet in science humans as one evaluation quote the God meanings.

Science as one agreement owned one human invented meaning men.

So one a man in science changed gods body by Multi described gods of....

Attacked two bodies. His daughter wife mother his life man continuance so his one God theme said by self was proven wrong. Via inferred multi God statements science.

Hence one God versus Multi gods is no different an explanation of a statement about how a human creation theist harmed life in one choice science.

As the argument is about creation.

There is no natural argument about self presence and life continuance as human sex is the choice.

Basic reason to argue against past storytelling in thesis. Formats of the human stories told for the human self.

The outcome updated one teachings in human science said one is mass and mass is holy do not name it.

Old texts had named earths variations why they were no longer accepted.

Yet one God theists claiming righteousness still use the Multi God information in science.

Another moot point.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not objecting to anything. I am just pointing out that people believe in things without any evidence where as Advaita (my belief) does not accept anything without proof and to that extent that the proof is available.

I see that proof is also a relative truth.

What you see as proof, may not be what I see is proof.

Regards Tony